A grave misunderstanding.
By Paul J Cella Posted in Republicans — Comments (122) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It will be a peculiar irony and a vivid reversal. For decades Liberals sought to make it the term “conservative” a toxic one, but they were frustrated in this purpose; and — like Chesterton’s remark that there comes a time in the journey of a convert when no asseveration from any freethinker or skeptic, but only the folly of some Christian, will deter him on his course — it has been left to Conservatives to poison the word. In coming months, a “conservative” party, controlling both Houses of our National Legislature and the National Executive, may very well enshrine in legislation a dispossession of our country. The Upper House has already set its will on this course of action, and, combining with the Executive, the media, the corporate interest, the elites both Right and Left, is exerting pressure to enervate what spirit of resistance remains in the Lower House. They will call this an immigration “compromise,” and in a sense compromise it will be: the compromise of our laws, our sovereignty and our liberty. Many thoughtful and indeed sincere men, and others merely facile and ambitious, have made what they call a “conservative case” for mass immigration; the widest-circulating newspaper in the country excels in this endeavor; but you might as well ask men to concoct a Christian case for unbelief, or an Islamic case for polytheism. There cannot really be a conservative case for something as revolutionary as what is augured by the immigration regime we currently suffer under, much less the ratification and extension of it on offer in legislation today. One could almost as easily imagine a clique of Roman aristocrats sitting around Rome or Ravenna in the fifth century conjuring a “conservative case for barbarian invasion.” As Oakeshott taught, in what might appear almost a truism, were it not for the perplexity that has settled over our politics, to be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown. To favor mass immigration is to exhibit a marked preference for the unfamiliar. We who oppose the current policy, and, a fortiori, the augmentation of it contemplated by, e.g., the Senate bill, are on occasion labelled nativists; will our interlocutors own to a reciprocal Alienism?
The Conservative is active in politics, not because politics really excites his fondness or stirs his ambition, much less because he has trust that politics will accomplish much that is good, but simply, and more basically, because something that is dear to him is threatened; and a man who will not move to defend what he loves is no man at all. It has regularly been the doom of the Conservative to join or to found, in the words of a great American orator, “a lean and proscribed minority”; and to lend his strength to what appears most surely lost. So be it — “It is he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth.”
We often hear it represented, in various controversies, that some position is well and truly doomed, that its propounders are tilting at windmills and so forth. On immigration men are admonished not to stand athwart the march of the Global Economy and King Mammon, whose benefices will be distributed, though unequally, at least in abundance to all. The cause is lost, restrictionists, yield to reality. This is to misunderstand what Conservatism is. The apparent inevitability (I emphasize apparently inevitable, for even the most solid of forecasts is still a forecast) of a thing’s demise is no argument against its principle. A great Conservative like the orator quoted above, John Randolph of Roanoke, ably defended the planter society of Old Virginia with the fevered brilliance of his rhetoric for a quarter century; we now know that, indeed, that society — a society that somehow, despite its coming doom, produced a number of men whose names now grace countless public buildings and monuments from Roanoke to San Francisco — was dying; should Randolph, then, have deserted the defense of the people who sent him to Congress all those years? Yes, he should have — this is the burden of the counsel we hear today. A legislator owes more to his judgment of the historical trends of the age — in Randolph’s toward the industrialism that favored the North, in ours toward the post-industrialism that favors a managerial and deracinated elite — than he does to the actual men he represents. We know how Randolph, a man who never met a political party or interest unworthy of the most acerbic castigation, would have answered such counsel; and with him we might also cite Burke and pronounce any policy suspicious that sacrifices the interest of a part for the hypothetical good of the whole.
Again I say, there cannot be, properly speaking, a Conservative case for mass immigration. There can be, certainly, a Capitalist case for mass immigration; and there can be a Libertarian case for mass immigration; and since there has been a long-standing alliance among these three parties, it is not inscrutable why some sincere confusion would emerge. But to argue for immigration on the grounds of economic vitality is to make a Capitalist argument; and to argue for it on grounds of individual freedom of movement is to make a Libertarian argument. There is the simulacrum of a genuine Conservative argument in the reasoning from tradition which often takes the form of that insufferable catchphrase about our “nation of immigrants.” But this, in fact, is an argument for a cautious policy of calculation and mature deliberation: for national and class quotas, for a cool analysis of the wants of the country balanced by the precariousness of her more vulnerable citizens, for a rigid and even ruthless distinction between citizen and alien: for, in short, a policy that owes most of its character to estimates of interest and not divination of hoary sentiment. The language of such a debate would, in contrast to the feeble emotionalism evident today, be much more mundane — callous even. There would be few paeans to our diversity; our language would not be traduced, nor articulation of our identity as a people — however vexed a question that may be — denounced. I suspect that most of the interests arrayed today behind mass immigration would be deeply rankled by the spectacle of a truly Conservative argument for immigration. Legislators might be seen explaining from the well of the Senate why Christians should be preferred over Muslims, Poles over Salvadorans, Salvadorans over Mexicans. The height of border fence might be at issue, not the necessity of it. Loyalty oaths might be discussed, not paths to citizenship. Liberals might be scandalized upon hearing of resolute calls for congressional investigations of the interests and agitation behind the mass demonstrations this spring, which featured millions marching in our cities under the flag of a foreign power. These are the sort of concerns that would compose a Conservative argument about immigration. Mass immigration is the falsification of all this: on principle it is, because what distinguishes a policy of mass immigration from a policy of calculated immigration is precisely the lack of any sober, realistic survey of numbers. And indeed, senators have openly admitted the question of numbers was outside the scope of their deliberations.
If the House of Representative manages to stand firm in the interests of the American people, manages, in fine, to let the Senate bill die the quiet death it so richly deserves, perhaps the ironic reversal predicted above will be averted. For as many expect, the GOP may lose control of the Congress this year; and then our dispossession will be inflicted, as it properly should, by the party of Liberalism.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Speaking of the Contract with America — Comments (5) »
A grave misunderstanding. 122 Comments (0 topical, 122 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I don't like people breaking the law anymore than the next guy. The fact of the matter is, people do it all of the time. Who here is going to claim that they NEVER exceed the speed limit by EVEN ONE MILE PER HOUR?
When you do, you are breaking the law. Different offenses call for different punishments. For speeding you pay a fine. It is appaerently the opinion of this President and Senate the the offense of entering the USA illegaly calls for a small fine and payment of back taxes.
You may disagree, but don't claim that this is without precedent.
As a matter of fact, not only is there precedent, there is something even more extreme than amnesty in our past. Liquor was once banned in this country, IN OUR CONSTITUTION no less. People ignored the law. The Congress saw this and repealed it. This sky did not come crashing down then, anymore than it will now when we lax up our immigration laws.
Please stop being alarmist. This President should be commended for sticking to his guns here.
Let us not make enemies of the good hardworking Christians coming across our southern border. Instead, let us unite with them against the real enemies, the Godless liberals who would stifle our free religious expression, and impose theor hedonistic values on us at every opportunity they get.
let the Senate bill die the quiet death it so richly deserves
It deserves to be drowned for the monster it is, with a trumpeted, public execution. Its proponents must be held accountable at the polls, and forced to wear sandwich signs which read "Traitor" on the front and "Coward" on the back. The bill should become a byword, the ribbon ceremonializing a new third rail.
But other than that, you are as usual wiser beyond whatever years you have.
in what you say in your first paragraph; and very likely wrong in your second, but thank you.
If anything, "conservatism" means a respect for law and order, stability in government, and opposition to radicalism. Those who embrace open borders and the concept of fungible citizens fall more into line with Susan Sarandon, who has denounced a border barrier just today, and others like her. These two camps may only agree here and in a few other places, but this extremism differentiates all of them from traditional conservatives.
I am not as pessimistic as you, Paul. One race illustrates why. Next week there will be a primary in Utah that pits long-time incumbent Chris Cannon against upstart John Jacob. I will leave that decision to the voters of that district, and realize more is at work here than one issue. However, to remain competitive, Rep. Cannon has been forced to do a 180 on his immigration position and tout his non-existent enforcement credentials (Cannon previously claimed to a radical Latino group Utah voters didn't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants). Those of us who oppose open borders, regardless of the outcome of that race, already have won in that Rep. Cannon had to change positions and thus put an end to false claims about what the American public wants. We can see what voters actually want from the positions of most candidates up for election or re-election this year.
This doesn't mean there won't be attempts to run roughshod over American citizens again, but the fear has been instilled.
Finally, I concur with Socrates. The hearings need to be held and the Senate bill killed just to send a message about the next time this extremism is attempted to be rammed down the Amercian citizens' throats. I hope the hearings are informative and, to be blunt, brutal. Frankly, if they simply examine Senate bill 2611 they will be brutal.
Your diary was eloquent, Paul, and it brightened my morning.
"Roman aristocrats sitting around Rome or Ravenna in the fifth century conjuring a 'conservative case for barbarian invasion.'"
Let's compare hard-working people wanting to improve the lives of their families with violent invaders who want to destroy a society.
"...were it not for the perplexity that has settled over our politics, to be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown."
Well this certainly explains how the "conservatives" in the House are spending at such a clip and joining in the quite familiar pork-barreling. I was hoping conservatism still offered the hope of reforming the more statist aspects of our government.
Overall though, if one is so pessimistic about the American ability to assimilate legal immigrants then these worries are quite understandable. I believe we still stand on different sides of that fence. America has shown an amazing ability to assimilate those who choose to be Americans. Over different time periods and with different home cultures and nationalities of immigrants, America has successfully integrated the Irish, the Italians, the British, the Germans, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Cubans, the Mexicans, the Poles, and many others as they have come into the country. It's a very "familiar" process. If we gave people the hope that they could become legal immigrants, assimilation works. What is new is the hope by many on the Tancredo side of the issue who want to leave the laws as they are with an underclass of illegal immigrants who do not assimilate well.
House Republicans insist they can't vote for any bill that can be called an "amnesty" for illegals, and that that's what the Senate and Mr. Bush want. But this is a box canyon of their own making. No serious person believes that the 11 million or so illegals already in America will be deported. Nor will these illegals come out of the shadows unless there is some kind of process that allows them to become legal and keep their jobs, even if it falls short of a path to citizenship. And immigrants will keep coming illegally in search of a better life unless there is some legal way they can apply for and find work.
Yet by denouncing any such compromise as "amnesty," the restrictionists have poisoned their own voters against accepting the only policy with a chance to solve the problem. When Indiana's Mike Pence, a stalwart conservative, offered a compromise that included a guest worker program, the Tancredo brigades savaged even him as endorsing "amnesty." Rather than see the Pence plan as a way out of their political mess, Mr. Hastert failed to defend him. On immigration, Mr. Tancredo is now the real speaker of the House.
Because, quite frankly, I find a lot of the rhetoric to be alarmist - much like we saw over the debate concerning the Kyoto Treaty. In this case, the threat is said to involve the dispossession of our country and the subversion of our laws and liberty.
Dire consequences of inaction have been laid out - much as we heard of dire consequences should the United States not take part in Kyoto and to address global warming/climate change.
And yet, just as we were asked to blindly accept the notions that the climate was changing in the form of global warming, humans were responsible, and thus, humans needed to make huge changes in their use of technology in the form of a binding treaty by the environmentalists who sought to foist the Kyoto Treaty on us, we are now asked to blindly accept the notion that the present immigration system is leading to the dispossession of our country, that illegal immigration is aggravating that situation, and thus, strict measures are needed.
Furthermore, just as Roger Ebert has openly stated that anyone who does not share his views on global warming is not impartial or balanced, here, we have Paul Cella declaring that anyone who does not share his views on immigration - and our national identity (a vague term which is undefined) is not a conservative.
In both cases, I fear we are seeing what Michael Crichton described in the appendix to his novel State of Fear:
Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
To paraphrase Michael Chricton, I am not saying the global warming debate and the immigration debate are the same. The similarities, though, strike me as being more than superficial. And I think that the result has been a suppression of a full and honest debate based on frank and open discussion of not just the data, but the issue of immigration itself, has been suppressed. Specifically,it is suppressed through the declarations along the lines that state flately those who do not favor a specific course of action are in favor of "the emascumation and gradual overthrow of we know", and "subversion of law", with the prima facie proof being disagreement with the "ideologically approved" course of action.
I might add that the notion that a Congressional investigation should be held into largely peaceful demonstration is shocking beyond words - is the right to assemble only applicable for approved people or approved causes?
I do not want a conservative debate. I want an open debate with all the arguments - one that is full, open, and unsuppressed. We must be certain that the course of action taken is based on such a debate, if only to ensure that what is enacted has properly balanced consideration of all the issues, not those favored by one faction.
No offense intended, but I'd like to see proof of the dire consequences that have been presented before we act so drastically on either immigration or global warming.
Increasingly Large numbers...
...of Welfare cases?
...of Single Males escaping legal prosecution?
...of (as evidenced by the terrorism arrests in Miami yesterday) those willing to join the forces Actively engaged in destroying America?
...of Single mothers or pregnant girls looking for free healthcare?
...of Drug Dealers?
...of weapons dealers and Other Black Marketeers?
That's just the Beginning of the list of those who are just wandering through our rather Porous border that we Don't want...
You're analogies are ridicules! Citizens of this county breaking the rules and laws punishments can very not non-citizens they are not the same!
The punishment for an invasion is usually war! And before you get all up in arms name another country on this planet that wouldn't see 12 - 20 million people crossing its borders illegally an invasion?
"To favor mass immigration is to exhibit a marked preference for the unfamiliar."
I think welcoming immigration is extremely familiar: we are a nation of immigrants, as the cliche says; and words familiar to many Americans are the ones that say "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," etc.
What would be truly radical and revolutionary is a wall around the country and mass deportations, which is what many extremists propose. Do those developments have any precedent? In what way are they familiar?
The argument has very little to Nothing to do with LEGAL Immigration.
It is ALL about ILLEGAL Immigration.
We're not too worried about assimilating LEGAL immigrants. They get a background check and are judged to not be detrimental to our society.
Assimilating ILLEGAL immigrants is an entirely different matter. As evidenced by their populations within our legal system. As evidenced by having all government communications written in English AND Spanish.
Want to join the debate instead of trying to debate something we're not talking about?
does this massive illegal invasion by nationals of another country have any precedent?
Let's compare hard-working people wanting to improve the lives of their families with violent invaders who want to destroy a society.
The Germanic barbarians were hardly bent purely on destruction of the Roman State, though it is certainly fair to say that the warrior element was prominent. But mostly they wanted to share in its wealth.
And as to your other point, Rome also assimilated the barbarians, in a manner of speaking. Many of the later emperors had barbarian blood. The barbarians were converted to the Cross; they eventually founded a great civilization of their own. Etc., etc. But Rome was no less conquered, subjugated and destroyed for all that. Again, this goes to my central point: a Conservative defends an existing society. It is no good to answer him, "don't worry, the foreigners will likely assimilate to some degree, and created their own society." His is gone. Imagine telling a Roman conservative not to worry about the barbarians because eventually they will found the Holy Roman Empire, repel the Saracens at Tours, etc.
A conservative case for mass immigration is a contradiction.
..you can see the debate between Paul and Adam is in fact over all immigration, not just illegal immigration. I can see where you'd be mistaken at first, but can we agree now that it is indeed what we are talking about?
What would be truly radical and revolutionary is a wall around the country and mass deportations,
If you read carefully, which I grant is a necessity with Paul's unusually dense style, you'll note that he is calling for stabilization. That means acquiring, by whatever means, control over immigration: who gets in and who doesn't. It doesn't mean a return to some former immigrantless pristine state, which, as you hint, never existed. Paul doesn't call in this post for deportation or a wall, though control over immigration does seem to require some kind of border security.
It is helpful to argue the points your opponent propounds, rather than those you wish he did.
not the demonstrations, Harold. I suppose an argument could be made to hold hearings on street protests by millions of people in the country illegally, but these House hearings shall focus on the Senate bill. I hope they are held, and the particulars of the Senate bill are laid out for all of the electorate to see and discuss.
No problem with a hearing on this legislation, is there?
Liberals might be scandalized upon hearing of resolute calls for congressional investigations of the interests and agitation behind the mass demonstrations this spring, which featured millions marching in our cities under the flag of a foreign power.
This was what I was responding to.
Paul has for a while been making an argument about the level of legal immigration while the illegal immigration debate is hot. He is not alone in putting the two issues together and they are definitely related. Those who wish to scuttle the compromise legislation that adds more border security and allow more legal immigartion (through a guest worker program) are not just opposing illegal immigration. I think the best legislation that could come out would be one with a stick for illegal immigration AND a carrot for legal immigration. The latter would also help parry allegations of racism and hatred of Mexicans. If one is vocally pro-immigrant, then being a staunch supporter of building a fence or other border measures is seen with much less suspicion. But many supporters of heightened border security are also anti-immigrant. Paul lays out a well reasoned argument for why immigration is a threat without any reference or differentiation between the legal and illegal types. My position continues to be that illegal immigration is a major problem not least of which because illegal immigrants do not assimilate as quickly or as well as legal ones. But the solution to that problem is a combination of making illegal immigration harder and legal immigration easier. That is being rejected because some do not want to make legal immigration easier.
the actual hearings. Just to be clear for everyone, though, the focus will be on Senate Bill 2611 itself. I think this could be illustrative about how far removed from the American mainstream that bill was.
our "existing society" is one full of waves of mass immigration, which lets try to agree is an era when more than 10% of the country is foreign born as is the case now and several times in the past. Our society was able to adapt and prosper during those past eras of mass immigration. The idea that our culture is more fragile now has legitimate arguments, but to gloss over the fact that in every historical case we were able to assimilate large numbers of people from similar cultures in one to two generations seems to be a willful omission in your posting. And furthermore, the fact that Mexican culture is probably the closest culture to ours of any of the waves of mass immigration also makes it more likley that assimilation will succeed again as it has in the past. I continue to agree wholeheartedly that assimilation is a key in talks about immigration which I think is one of the defining differences between liberal and conservative discussions on the topic. But being optimistic based on past evidence that assimilation of legal immigrants works should not disqualify one from the conservative ranks.
I still believe that rewarding those who work hard to support their families and are willing to seek out in an entrepreneurial way by taking the risk of leaving their homeland is a conservative position.
Would check post numbers (lower right corner of each post) you'd find that that started After I made the post to which you have responded.
Getting the Order of comments being made is almost as important as knowing what the arguments actually are.
And I don;t really see much trouble with it except that in compromising and going for Both simultaneously, we will achieve Neither and Increase Illegal Immigration.
The Senate Bill is a Perfect example of how we will do that.
I am now and always Have Been for Enforcement First.
Secure the Border First Thing. Enforce Existing Laws Next.
Worry about the rest when we have the illegal immigration issue dealt with.
Hell, I'm even ok with amnesty for our Existing immigrants (those who have broken No Additional Laws, that is) so long as the Border is Secure and the reasons for crossing that border are eliminated (the one wwe Can eliminate, that is. not much we can do about the situations in the nations these people are coming from).
I don't necessarily agree with Paul in all aspects but it seems to me that a massive demonstration apparently at the behest of a foreign power is well within Congress' prerogative to investigate. We've investigated all manner of foreign influence in the past.
So my sensibilities were offended with Congress let this assault on our sovereignity pass by.
"I can see where you'd be mistaken at first". I saw the order of the comments (and watched them come in). Relax.
Although, if you had actually read Paul's post, you'd see right away that he was speaking of mass immigration in general.
our "existing society" is one full of waves of mass immigration
I might dispute the word "mass," but in any case you have missed one of my central points, which is that, to the extent that past waves of immigration are part of our existing social state, it must be remembered that those past debates included certain factors that are perfectly anthema to regnant Liberalism. They included, in a word, unapologetic discrimination.
Adam, how would you react if part of the immigration debate including specific arguments by members of Congress about why, say, our policy should discriminate against Mexicans and Muslims, and favor Christians and Eastern Europeans? Or again, discriminate against Mexicans and favor South Americans*; or again, discriminate against Pakistanis and favor Indians? How would you react of it included hard words about loyalty oaths, and the imperative difference between citizen and noncitizen?
Yet this is precisely the sort of talk that characterized the older waves, to which you harken back in your celebration of assimilation. In short, it is precisely the kind of cool deliberation based on national interest, as opposed to fanciful sentimentality, that gave evidence of the will to assimilate. That such deliberation (Reid denouncing the English language as racist!) is almost inconceivable today.
When America of the past demanded assimilation, it demanded a price to be paid by the immigrant: a partial loss of his culture and heritage. This is no small thing, and it can be very painful. We have not the smallest hint of the will to demand that such a price be paid. That you will not address this point -- will not address the very point about past waves of immigration that I called to readers' attention -- makes me, sadly, doubt your seriousness on this point of assimilation.
___
* Why might we prefer South Americans? because their distance from us would insure a more formal severance of ties to their homeland, and a more sure step toward full loyalty to America.
And by that, I mean is there any evidence of involvement by a foreign power beyond the fact that some of these demonstrations featured Mexican flags?
The post is on mass immigration without differentiation between legal and illegal. If it were not, then the effort to allow more legal immigrants would be a satisfactory solution. But Paul and others oppose that because they are concerned by immigration per se, not just the illegal sort.
So the posters point stands that welcoming immigrants is much more familiar than a wholly isolationist stance with respect to those who wish to become Americans.
And Congress's power to investigate is very robust. The whole point of the investigation would be to discover the very "proof" that our interlocutor demands. If there is even the slightest bit of evidence that a foreign power used its influence on our shores to mobilize millions to affect our legislative process, don't you think that might be a subject worthy of inquiry for the primary
institution of that process?
legal vs. illegal is a smokescreen, a dodge, a way of predetermining the debate so that liberals always win.
at least on my planet, are conducted to find proof.
Maybe all those tens of thousand Mexican flags were just part of the normal attire of the demonstrators. Fine.
Maybe a foreign government was involved in their distribution. Then the question becomes whether those handing out the flags are registered as agents of a foreign nation which is required by law.
Maybe a foreign government is actively encouraging illegal immigration or actively encouraging their citizens already here illegally to continue to violate our laws. That would run perilously close to an act of war.
Is the Atzlan movement involved? If so, are they merely a bunch of kooks or are they operating at the behest or as an agency of a foreign government?
In my mind there are lots of potentially fruitful paths of inquiry on this subject... if we aren't afraid to find the answers.
I emphasize is between mass immigration and calculated or deliberate immigration, which strikes me as an altogether more fruitful line of inquiry -- especially seeing how many of the open borders types (not necessarily you, Adam) would happy demolish the legal/illegal distinction by simply legalizing all the illegals with the stroke of a pen.
But the real question is: will of immigration policy be calculated to advance the interest of American citizens? It is easier to get at that by thinking about mass vs. deliberate immigration.
... as soon as Congress passes and the President signs a law stating that it's A-OK for me (a US Citizen) to pay 3-out-of-any-5 years of unpaid income taxes without having to do a long stretch in Club Fed.
So in other words, I won't be getting back in touch.
But then again, maybe not paying income taxes and evading the immigration laws of the nation are, indeed, just like doing 56 in a 55 and I'm just being an old fuddy-duddy, right?
Of those demonstrations featured Mexican Flags and placards declaring that certain parts of the US were actuallly mexico, among other things.
There should have been an investigation Immediately aas to whether or not the demonstrations Were at the behest of a foreign power, and if so, which one and why>
and if they were Not, then who Was behiind them and why?
These investigations were not held.
you could claim to be an illegal alient, pay three-out-of-five, wait a few years and do it again. You could keep doing this until the cows come home as long as you keep pretending to be an illegal alien.
Insofar as immigrants become American by assimilating to American underclass norms, we and they are worse off. Looking at things like crime, high school dropout rates, illegitimacy rates, and the persistent sense of racial grievance, assiduously nurtured by the state and its appendages, that is on display in the immigration marches and in the pronouncements of activists, it is not hard to conclude that this is precisely what is happening with many Latino immigrants.
I just note that many commenters seem to want to fall back on the illegal vs. legal distinction. Maybe it is the timing of this discussion on the appropriate level of legal immigration, but it seems there is a knee jerk reaction in recent debates to do as Raven did and assume that the discussion is only about illegal immigration. This misses the main point of your diary, if I am reading it correctly.
"It is easier to get at that by thinking about mass vs. deliberate immigration."
I would also use the terms "indiscriminate" vs. "beneficial," the latter of which was American policy prior to Ted Kennedy's 1965 insanity. "Indiscriminate" indicates an entitlement mentality on the part of the immigrant, "beneficial" indicates a positive for the United States. Yet "mass" vs. "deliberate" is a less loaded terminology, so it works.
We understand very well what is being discussed here. Remember, George Bush wants to make all the illegal aliens legal by the stroke of a pen. Means what he says and says what he means. Yeah.
SB 2611 bundled legal immigration with border security, interior enforcement, and illegal immigration issues. I can see why people speak of all at once because the legislation was framed that way.
and the logistical effort required to mount such enormous demonstrations, coupled with the continuing meddling of the Mexican state in American affairs, ought to constitute grounds for suspicion. Maybe it was put together by a few activists using MySpace, but maybe not.
I don't think the legal/illegal distinction helps all that much (though I do not dismiss it). We have already shown, on this issue, an indifference to law so fantastic as to render much of such discussion moot.
But wouldn't I hate myself in the morning?
All the way to the bank, that is.
Mr. Frazier, with due respect, this issue is too important to start encouraging the conflation of different conceptions and arguments. What we need is more clarity, not less.
Remember his October surprise claims?
I'm sure you recall Tom Foley's famous comments about saying there was no proof (or evidence) to back up the claims, but that an investigation was warranted because of "the seriousness of the charge."
I was still in high school at the time, but I could tell back then it was cover for a politically-motivated hatchet job that was arguably a misuse of the legislative branch's investigative powers.
No offense, but I need more than a bunch of Mexican flags waving before I go along with an investigation.
didn't they?
There is your precedent.
are skewed here. Adam and others keep referring to "immigration" as a description of what is in fact "migration". Immigration is what happens when one person moves to another country. Migration is the mass movement of peoples, like the migration of the Angles and Saxons to sixth century Briton.
Did you know that HUAC was preparing a big report on Japanese subversion on the West Coast scheduled for release in December 1941?
..the fact that Mexican culture is probably the closest culture to ours of any of the waves of mass immigration
Lets ignore for the moment that, if true, you are advocating discriminating against other cultures. Can you offer anything to substantiate this claim that Mexican culture is in fact the most like "ours" of any prior wave of immigrants?
If so, then why not just go back to running the House the way Tom Foley did back then? Why not bring back the House Bank and House Post Office while we are at it?
Or is it just a matter of deciding to invoke the precedents that might be useful for a given issue?
with BOTH paragraphs. I am particularly aligned with a 3rd rail, but short of that, a public dismantling of the bill, it's proponents, and the foolishness that led to its creation is a must for moving forward from this insanity.
the declassification of some Venona intercepts and from some recent books on the Cold War, if anything HUAC understimated the degree of communist penetration into the United States government and society as a whole. History has vindicated the committee, not that anyone who graduated in the last 40 or so years would know it.
because of the screams about it from the Left. Sound familiar? And whatever else he was, McCarthy was right about the communists in government. They're still there, it's just that there allegiance isn't to Moscow anymore it is to some grand socialist international order.
Are you saying that you are not disturbed by millions of people, illegally in this country and supported by a foreign power, marching in our streets under the flag of that foreign power?
If so, what would it take to disturb you?
in line with a great precedent that predates Tom Foley by several decades. For every bogus investigation like the October Surprise you have valuable ones like that of the Savings and Loan industry and like those into Pearl Harbor and into war profiteering. And even those into communist influence in the State Department.
I don't see how we can even begin to consider the Senate bill without investigating the planning of the demonstrations.
but the more I think through what you and others have posted, it is inevitable the illegal alien protests will be at a minimum examined.
I'm sorry, but I think that has to top the stretch made by Tom Foley when he started that gig.
Invoking one of the biggest Congressional wild-goose chases to pursue this doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I'd be willing to bet that any valid point made would be lost in the reaction that would come from investigating what happened at a series of demonstrations that were, by most accounts I've seen, peaceful.
I'm just not buying into the hysteria.
I'd like a bit more proof of something wrong than people waving flags.
hard to fathom. It's as if a mutant strain of Progressivism is on the loose - it's historically inevitable that everything will turn out just great, if we'd only quit worrying.
We're not talking about "people waving flags". We're talking about people who are not supposed to be in this country waving flags of a foreign power while lobbying for changes in our countries laws, changes which that foreign power wants.
demonstrations in 1939-41 were peaceful, too. Didn't mean they weren't an agency of a foreign power. The West Coast dock strikes during WW II and afterwards were peaceful, it doesn't mean the longshoreman's union conducting them wasn't under the control of CPUSA members who, we now know, were owned and operated by Moscow.
We were on the werge of war with Germany in 1939, when the German-American Bund was investigated. The dock strikes were at the start of the Cold War.
Is either a shooting war or a "cold war" with Mexico in the cards?
either the Cold War or World War II. The purpose of those Longshoreman Union strikes was to undermine American internal politics, so Strieff's analogy is a sound one in that regard.
be at, or on the verge of war, to find out who means us ill?
Some of those protestors were apparently American citizens. Don't they have a right to demand changes in the laws of this country?
In fact, that might not be enough. After all, if we change just one little freedom of any kind in any way, then the terrorists have won.
Waving a flag was prima facie proof that someone means this country ill.
front groups involved in the May Day protests do intend to do us ill. They obviously don't represent the current Mexican government, but if Lopez-Obrador gets elected this might be a fruitful line in inquiry.
I repeat my earlier question; does it not disturb you at all that people who are not supposed to be in this country stage protests under the flag of a foreign power to advocate changes in our laws which are desired by that foreign power?
But let's deal with that if it comes. Who knows? Calderon might just pull it out.
Because, quite frankly, I think a bunch of those folks who were protesting are doing far more for this country than native-born citizens like Michael Moore, Ramsey Clark, and Cindy Sheehan.
what's wrong with finding out now rather than waking up one morning and finding out that there's a problem.
If Mexicans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, or Irish, want to come to America let them follow the law. And when they get here don't tell me that LA actually belongs to Mexico so I should get out. Mass demonstrations in the streets accompanied by massed foreign flags and banners demanding either automatic citizenship, or that I get off their lawn makes me wonder about where their loyalties lay. You may not see it that way.
I'm informed that Mexicans are very conservative people, natural Republicans in fact.
could be.
in the 1980s waving a Soviet flag might have been a dead giveaway just like waving a Nazi one in 1944 would have been.
Driving a car could contribute to global warming, but that does not necessarily make it so.
Given the dire consequences Paul has laid out (specifically, a dispossession of this country), I would submit that he is the one who has to provide proof of his assertions.
Let him present his evidence, so people can decide if he has proven his case that our "national identity" (if there is even a commonly-accepted definition of what that is) is being threatened. He is the one who needs to prove the dispossession.
The English Language is fun to play with if you know what you're doing...
Written or spoken...
But, you do realize that those illegals and legals will support the Democrats. You'll just end up with more of Democrats. If 1986 didn't win the Hispanic vote for Republicans, nothing will. That's just from a political standpoint.
How is low wage, massive immigration a help to this country? It sucks down community resources to support these people. The only people they are helping are the people and businesses looking for below market labor.
If you look at historical information for Mexican immigrants, even up through the 4th generation, you are looking at HS dropout rates of +40%. That is a net drain.
I totally agree that control of immigration is crucial. I would think that this is one point on which all conservatives would agree -- both those conservatives like Harold and Adam (and me) who favor more legal immigration and those like Paul and you who favor less.
And I agree with Paul that a conservative position would include being deliberate about who (and how many) immigrants we allow into the country. I welcome such a debate.
I also agree with Paul that the debate needs more clarity of thought and precision of language (which in my mind includes less emotion on both sides of the debate).
However, I don't see why Paul contrasts "mass immigration" as the opposite of "deliberate immigration." Isn't it possible to have a "deliberate immigration" policy in which we, as a society, would deliberately decide that we want to let lots of immigrants into the country?
So I agree with Paul that it is difficult to have a conservative position that doesn't support immigration control. But I disagree that there can't be a conservative position supporting both immigration control and more legal immigration.
psychological and cultural stupefaction, self-inficted as a prophylactic against a sense of regret over the devastations wrought by the unfolding of 'progress'; the sacrifices rendered up to 'progress' must be forever hidden from consciousness so that the memory of them, and the alienation attendant upon them, never roils the uninterrupted, unselfconscious revelling in the satisfactions 'progress' affords - and let it not be forgotten that the benefactions of 'progress' are virtually always of the cruder sort, seldom touching upon genuine advances in the cultivation of virtue (rather, the opposite, in many instances) or the refinement of spiritual sensibilities. Forgetfulness is the obligation of those who would sleep peacefully after having wrought injustice against the good.
of the "control" spectrum, if not the "volume" spectrum. Mass immigration is allowing the unhindered movement of the horde. Deliberate immigration is picking and choosing who gets in.
I just want us not to outsmart ourselves, and let in a bunch of mocha-drinking engineers and bloggers, instead of people who will work, vote, and bleed along with the rest of us.
some of us were born here...
So if the law was changed so that you pay a fine for entering illegally and that is done then they will be in compliance yes? Will you be cool with it then?
So now I guess that most terrorists are Mexicans and not Arabs right?
And most welfare queens are Mexican not urban black or rural whites?
I guess you are willing to go and pick oranges in 100 degree heat for $2 an hour? No? But I bet you are willing to pay the low prices that work enables.
Get Real.
The Godless white liberals of the Northeast and California are a much graver threat to our security and way of life than the folks coming here to work.
So now we are saying one law is more important than another?
HMMM?
Whatever happened to "The law is the law!!!"
Why should the punishment for entering illegaly to make some hard earned money be more severe than the punishment for wreckless driving which kills thousands upon thousands of people every year?
In fact, I wish we'd have a law that NONE of us EVER have to pay ANY income tax. We should be taxed only on what we spend.
As much as I disagree with a couple of your premises, you are an eloquent arguer and writer and I commend you for that.
I disagree, we CAN win this vote. We just have to exploit the right issues.
Yes, law and order. The recent demonstrations and the Bush Administration's non-enforcement policy reminds me of nothing less than the Carter-era catering to rank criminality. Americans believe in the rule of law, and if the GOP is perceived as weak on enforcement it will go down and go down hard. Fortunately, it appears the House may prevent the Republican Party from jumping off the cliff into its own post-Carter abyss. Otherwise, we will witness the pathos of Republicans who have alienated the vast majority of their party in a doomed attempt to woo voters who want Democratic welfare policies and those who will enact them.
Wall Street Journal Republicans ran the party into the ground for about 50 years, and it sat in the corner, quiet and irrelevant. It appears those types have forgotten their pathetic performances prior to the Carter era.
No, I don't mind if laws are changed and then obeyed. But they must be obeyed, and the criminal employers and illegal aliens who work for them must be punished swiftly and harshly.
because it overstepped itself. Yes there most certainly were Com,munists in the US. But how many of them were a serious threat? Some, I'm sure. But many others were just dumb college kids or bored socialites playing at revolutionary. Moreover McCarthey and his folks started tarring anyone left of Herbert Hoover with the Communism label (even Dwight Eisenhower was not beyond suspicion!) and that sort of overkill is what made them ridiculous and hated. They should have kept their focus narrow and their works quiet rather than grandstanding outrageously for publicity's sake.
HUAC obviously was in the House. I would dissect what you wrote, but let me just say that recently released American intercepts of communiques from Soviet agents imbedded in the federal government indicated at least 140 high level penetrations. McCarthy's claim of "100 known communists" actually was less than probably could be found in State and Defense. Most of those agents remain unknown today. If you haven't read about this subject matter in the last few years, I can assure you historians have pretty much confirmed the worst case scenario was the reality.
We looked down on the British because of the Burgess/McClean affair, but it turns out the situation was worse here at home.
Ok, now, does anybody think that the problem just went away after Murrow showed off Eugene's sweatiness?
C'mon.
It's as if a mutant strain of Progressivism is on the loose - it's historically inevitable that everything will turn out just great, if we'd only quit worrying.
I've thought about this question at some length, for it's admitedly one of the sharper critiques of my position. But I answer by wondering why it doesn't occur to some of the restrictacons that their preferred prescription -- a dramatic cut in the rate of immigration -- likewise is a crapshoot.
I'm deeply skeptical of the use of state power for purposes of social engineering. I can't help but think that a robust rate of Latin American immigration -- and let's all be candid; this is essenitally the issue at hand: large-scale Latin American immigration and the various consequences to our nation flowing from this immigration (or, if you prefer, John "migration") -- I can't help but think that a robust rate of Latin American immigration is a more natural course of action than the alternative being proposed (the latter, I take it, would require a significantly more miltarized America, and a sharply nosier state with respect to commerce and employment). I admit it: it seems to me that because our country sits on top of, what, 500 million or so Latin Americans, we're bound, if we allow nature to take its course, to have our demographics altered by migration from our south. I'm not aware of any way we can avoid allowing government policy to determine, or at least to greatly influence, the country's demographic composition. A policy to admit a million and a half Latin Americans will, yes, naturally create demographic facts on the ground in the United States. And so will a policy to restrict the inflow to a tenth of that number.
What I'm really getting at is: how do we know the consequences -- especially the long term consequences -- of deliberate government policy to sharply reduce Latin American immigration will be benefical? The United States we have with us now -- a place where there is much that grates but where there is still much to cherish -- is the product of some thirty-five decades of a more or less laissez-faire style of immigration and only five or so of the "careful" and "deliberate" (and greatly diminished) sort advocated by some. Careful and deliberate to me smacks of the government picking winners. At least there is some sort of darwinian dynamic observable in the illegal migration we've been experiencing these past few decades -- a darwininan dynamic that's mostly lacking, I'd adver, in that part of the immigration we allow by law. Whatever else illegal migrants lack, one can't say they want for industriousness, or daring, or determination, or, drive, or toughness, or strength. As the old saw goes, many of them risk their lives to get here. Effete they ain't. Maybe the infusion of blood we get from them is blood we need. Maybe shutting down the infusion will be found -- many decades hence after it's too late -- to be have been a mistake.
All I'm saying is nobody has a crystal ball. We might consider pausing a bit to ponder the consequences before we roll the dice on any course of action concerning immigration -- including restricting it.
I don't think we are that far apart. I think the law will be changed. The law will be made such that illegal immigration is made into a minor offense much like a traffic violation. People will gladly pay the fines and get on with their lives.
Here is the fatal flaw with your "Republican Doomsday" argument:
When the Democrats were (and are) soft on crime/security/etc, there was a viable alternative: the GOP. Now, if as you claim, the GOP goes soft on immigration, where is the VIABLE alternative? Note: I said VIABLE. If you say Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo, etc., you are not being intellectually honest.
is in order for this bill -- and I really like the sandwich board idea, too!
Stocks next, maybe?
PB Almeida, take a look at the American Indians. Did they benefit from unrestricted immigration? Did the Romans benefit from allowing the barbarian tribes to settle in Roman territory? Obviously, the answer is no. An unrestricted flow of people into this country is a bad thing. It will irrevocably change the culture of this country.
You have to remember that in the past, we had a lot of open country. We were a growing and very new nation. Now, we have a significant population. Allowing continued, unrestricted immigration doesn't make sense in today's America. You can look to the past for guidance. However, the past can only inform based on common conditions.
I can't help but think that a robust rate of Latin American immigration is a more natural course of action than the alternative being proposed
Is there some limit to the number of people you would allow into this country? You are very close to playing the "inevitablility" card. That's the card absolves one from all moral, ethical, and national considersations since its inevitable.
Whatever else illegal migrants lack, one can't say they want for industriousness, or daring, or determination, or, drive, or toughness, or strength. As the old saw goes, many of them risk their lives to get here. Effete they ain't. Maybe the infusion of blood we get from them is blood we need. Maybe shutting down the infusion will be found -- many decades hence after it's too late -- to be have been a mistake.
Personally, I'm tired of these types of statements. Somehow your fellow Americans aren't good enough. (Considering the large percentage of Hispanics in prison and their high dropout rates, it's probably not the type of "drive, daring, etc." that we need) BTW, I'm not yelling here or looking for a fight. I'm just tired of this type of logic. It's basically, we aren't good enough therefore we need to bring in better people. The logic is a disservice to your fellow countrymen.
I'm deeply skeptical of the use of state power for purposes of social engineering.
This is one of the true purposes of the government. If the government refuses to protect its own citizens from illegals flooding across the border, then it is negligent. If it allows mass immigration to the detriment of its existing populace it is at a minimum bordering on treasonous.
PB Almeida, take a look at the American Indians. Did they benefit from unrestricted immigration?
No. Who's arguing for unrestricted immigration? Certainly not I. I'm arguing against sharply restricting immigration. Those are two different animals.
Is there some limit to the number of people you would allow into this country? You are very close to playing the "inevitablility" card. That's the card absolves one from all moral, ethical, and national considersations since its inevitable.
Yes, there is "some limit" to the quantity of immigration I'd allow. I'm not sure I've arrived at what that number should be. I don't think it should be as small as Tancredo's 250k. Nor as large as "unlimited". I don't pretend to know an exact figure. Perhaps a cap at 1% of existing population? Or .75%? Perhaps a cap based on the number of foreigners American employers want to employ, subject to regulation (super minimum wage? docmented vetting?).
Personally, I'm tired of these types of statements. Somehow your fellow Americans aren't good enough.
Sorry if this offends you. Averring that "new blood" invigorates the nation hardly means I find my fellow Americans not good enough. Do you think the America of 1920 was inferior to the America of 1880? The immigration infusion from that period promptly produced Mencken, Gerswhin, Babe Ruth, and Frank Sinatra. How terrible.
If the government refuses to protect its own citizens from illegals flooding across the border, then it is negligent.
No disagreement here. I've said nothing to the contrary.
If it allows mass immigration to the detriment of its existing populace it is at a minimum bordering on treasonous.
You're stating it a bit strongly here, I'd say. Maybe such a government would be guilty merely of incompetence. But even here, what does "detriment" mean, functionally? Does detriment to 5% of the population constitute the treason you describe? 10%? 50%? It's hard to argue against such a broad brush stroke contention of harm. Finally, when does immigration become mass immigration? When it exceed 200,000? A half million? A million? Two million?
No. Who's arguing for unrestricted immigration? Certainly not I. I'm arguing against sharply restricting immigration.
You seem to be. One minute you are talking about the seeming natural inevitability of the vast millions of Central and South Americans want to come to the country and how you're concerned about government power. Now suddenly you say you do want restrictions.
Perhaps a cap at 1% of existing population? Or .75%? Perhaps a cap based on the number of foreigners American employers want to employ, subject to regulation (super minimum wage? docmented vetting?).
You're talking about 2.5-3 million new immigrants a year. And with our wonderful family reunification policy, this would lead to millions more. Right now, we let in about 1 million immigrants per year.
Personally, I say we have a moratorium on all forms of immigration and guest worker programs for a decade. That will give us time to rationally discuss what we want to do and give us time to assimilate those already there.
Sorry if this offends you. Averring that "new blood" invigorates the nation hardly means I find my fellow Americans not good enough.
We can play the game of naming people for a long time. You want me to go through and talk about the Mafia, Tamany Hall, etc.? How about we talk about jihadist tendencies, drug dealing, corruption, and murder of some current legal and illegal immigrants. There are consequences to periods of mass immigration. To follow your analogy, "new blood" if it is the wrong time will kill the host.
Does detriment to 5% of the population constitute the treason you describe?
Is the government only the government of 95% of the population? Or does it have the duty to look to the interests of everyone? Today we have mass immigration through neglect of immigration laws and allowing +1 million immigrants.
that HUAcand Mccarthy were in different houses. However my larger point is that the anti-Communists (who were aboslutely fighting the good fight) badly overreached, using the cause not for the godo of the country but for partisan demagoguery and that is why it fell into such disrepute.
Have you thought that much of it was an early version of HUACLied; it really is the same playbook. They were after Hollywood and the entrenched Lefties in government, many of them the darlings of the East Coast and Ivy League social circles. And State and CIA leaked like sieves back then too, except the leaks went to the KGB before they went to the NYT.
As to Eisenhower, many on the Right were very unhappy with him going all the way back to the decision not to go to Berlin and, later, unwillingness to agressively confront Soviet expansionism and militarization. Even the Democrats, still a bit warlike back then, criticized him for that and for falling behind the Soviets technologically; a major campaign piece for Kennedy was the "missile gap" that was perceived to exist between the US and the USSR.
In short, while any organization has its good and bad moments, the Hollywood and government school version of HUAC and "McCarthyism" is myth.
One minute you are talking about the seeming natural inevitability of the vast millions of Central and South Americans want to come to the country and how you're concerned about government power. Now suddenly you say you do want restrictions.
No. You need to read more carefully. I said we're bound to have our demographics altered if we let "nature take its course". We obviously could decide not to let nature take its course (whether or not we could accomplish stopping nature entirely in this instance is an open question, but I digress). I want restrictions on both illegal and legal immigration. For the former, I vote for 100% elimination. We are at war with totalitarian Islamists, after all, and a largely pourous border is a major security risk. Still, we're not at war with Guatemalans or Mexicans. So, while I don't want the latter coming in illegally, and I don't believe their arrival is causing a "dispossession of our country" (to use Paul Cella's phrase) I do want us to have the secure border we should have as nation at risk. For the latter (legal immigration, that is), I vote for reasonable curbs and regulations (background checks, ineligibility for benefits, English language reguirements, etc). In short, while I believe we're at a non-trivial risk for the penetration of either of our borders by terrorists, I don't think we're at serious risk for the cultural or economic peril mentioned in the Cella piece that started this thread. We don't, after all, receive unlimited illegal immigration. We likely receive somewhere between 500k and 1m annually. Ditto for total immigration, which probably maxes out at around 2 million. This yields a net immigration rate of about .75%. We had something like double this rate in 1900.
You're talking about 2.5-3 million new immigrants a year. And with our wonderful family reunification policy, this would lead to millions more.
Maybe. I'm not tied to any particular number. I think it's entirely possible that we could replace the, say, 800k illegals we're getting now annually with a rational policy allowing in, say, 600k annually on legal basis. That would constitute a decline of 200k (I assume I don't have to regurgitate the argument about getting rid of black markets). Some modifications to existing immigration policy (increasing the quotas for highly educated people, curbing family reunifiation) coupled with something along the ideas of the Pence plan might be do nicely. I have a notion we'd likely be able to cap out total numbers at about 2 million annually with virtually none of it undocumented, if we get the incentives right. That would likely leave us with total immigration numbers no higher than the status quo's (it's just that under the status quo, a large percentage of that is illegal). Our current immigration policy ignores economics. I don't think economics is everything, mind you, but we simply can't ignore economic forces either and expect to avoid negative spillover effects any more than we can with drugs.
And with our wonderful family reunification policy, this would lead to millions more.
I have no objections to, and indeed favor, modifications to the status quo with respect to family reunifaction policies. But it's simply not true to say that such policies ultimately lead to large annual increases in legal immigration. They don't now (we're effectively capped at about one million per year). What they do lead to is very long queues for green cards.
There are consequences to periods of mass immigration.
What's "mass" immigration? Is it a net immigration rate of .001% annually? .01% annually? .1%? 1%? Do the wheels fall of our national cart when annual immigration totals exceed 100K, or 250K?, or a half million, or two million, or three million? I'm not trying to be snarky here. I'm just trying to pin you down on what you think the proper number should be. You apparently want a moratorium (do I take it to mean you favor zero immigration for the time being?) but most restrictacons want something along the lines of 250k-500k. I only bring this up to point out that, at heart, most conservatives in the two camps are simply arguing about numbers: how much is too much? I think ten million would be too much. I don't think two million is too much (although I think even 5,000 from, say, Yemen, may well be too much).
You want me to go through and talk about the Mafia, Tamany Hall, etc.?
If you're so concerned about the harm caused by allowing in Italian and Irish immigrants, do you admit here that allowing them in was a mistake? If so we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't contend that our immigration policy should be neutral with respect to national origin. Far from it. I simply don't think immigration from the counties in question (mostly Latin American ones, that is) is likely to harm the nation.
To follow your analogy, "new blood" if it is the wrong time will kill the host.
Indeed. I'm surprised we don't witness more conservatives publicly expressing relief or gratitude that the flow of immigration received by the United States is mostly Christian, and mostly speaks a European tongue. This is in marked contrast to the experience of our European cousins, for whom immigration really may be an existential threat.
Is the government only the government of 95% of the population? Or does it have the duty to look to the interests of everyone?
Of course it must look after the interests of everyone. But no government can formulate policy on the basis of "do (literally) no harm" to anyone, ever. Ending agricultural subsidies tomorrow morning would be the right thing to do. But some people would, alas, be harmed.
I would like to encourage folks comparing today to yesteryear to think about what exactly illegal immigrants are doing today versus what waves of immigrants did in the past.
Past immigrants did not directly receive benefits paid for by citizens, nor did the expect them. They arrived here and went to work making a life for themselves. If I am wrong and something along the scale of today's massive payments did indeed exist in those times, I welcome correction.
Today's illegal immigrants are demanding benefits from citizens. Demanding. They perceive it as a right. For example, one pro-illegal blogger who was complaining about the new requirement that limits Medicaid to those who can prove their citizenship posted "for those of you without insurance, you can kiss your heathcare goodbye." The same blog entry discussed how stupid the law was anyway, since emergency room care had to be provided and the government was simply creating problems for its citizens, not for the illegal immigrants. Harris County (Houston) spent $100 million of local taxpayer dollars last year alone in providing health care to illegal immigrants, up 77% in just three years. (They actually spent $128 million but $28 million was reimbursed from the federal coffers.)
I find the entitlement attitude to be in direct conflict with the attitude of prior immigrants.
(While we can debate endlessly the failings of healthcare today, we are still a nation that expects otherwise-healthy and able-bodied people to work, and to use some of their earnings to purchase health insurance or to pay for their own healthcare.)
Also, it seems that few legal immigrants actually want to become citizens, which I would posit as being the opposite of prior immigrants. Another website is promoting citizenship/voter registration, and by their own numbers there are at least 8 million Spanish-speaking legal immigrants who qualify for citizenship but have never bothered.
I welcome the call to put sensibility aside and discuss these problems with sense instead.
but, of course, the entitlement mentality is not confined merely to illegal immingrants. It is symptomatic of society in general today.
That was thoughtful comment from the pro-immigration side. I don't have the time to reply fully right now, but one quick question; you allude to the possible dire consequences of slowing or halting immigration. What do you think those consequences might be?
Do you really think that the GOP -- a conservative GOP that is -- has ANY chance of even breaking even with immigrants (and at least the first native-born generation) so long as we have mass annual levels of immigration?
And if so, what do you base that belief on?
But you must know that all past mass waves eventually came to an end, either as a result of actions beyond the control of the govt, or as a result of Congressional legislation.
Barring something unforeseen in the sending countries, the current mass wave has no end in sight of its own accord. The only way it is likely to come to an end is if Congress acts again and ends it with new legislation.
It is apples to oranges to point to pass successful assimilation of mass waves of immigrants as a sure sign that the current, no-end-in-sight wave, will be similarly absorbed. Anyone using the past as a justification for the present cannot just ignore this.
And I don't think that supporting mass immigration disqualifies one as a conservative (afterall there are a hundred different issues we could talk about here and even the most conservative person may find themselves holding a non-conservative view or two), it just means you hold a liberal, or at least non-conservative, position on immigration -- in my humble opinion.
I don't like people breaking the law anymore than the next guy. The fact of the matter is, people do it all of the time. Who here is going to claim that they NEVER exceed the speed limit by EVEN ONE MILE PER HOUR?
As a matter of fact, I speed. On longer trips, I even calculate my speed so as to avoid higher fines and more points on my license should I get a ticket. It is my calculated risk with the laws of the society to which I belong.
To cast the far greater legal offenses of the illegal alien who does not belong to my society as equivalent to the lowest motor vehicle infraction by a citizen is insulting to the concept of rational debate. For the illegal alien knows what the penalty is for what he does: deportation for the first arrest for entry; a felony for the second arrest for entry; and, multiple felonies for a single stolen identity. That is the risk calculus of the illegal alien.
The president would make folly of the laws in place, retroactively downgrading penalties for a select new resident class while making a mockery the rest of us who happen to be citizens. We all must be fools, for every one of us surely has failed to obey every period and comma of our laws, but - amazingly - we still have the mental capacity to understand that the rule of law is societal glue of the ages that we should never infect with man's contemporary weaknesses lightly.
Maybe in the coming Bushworld, we'll all be tipped off in advance that we'll be granted such ex-post-facto forgiveness for our first three or four felonies. It would make for such a lovely, peaceful society as the real nature of man is revealed by relief from such trivial constraints.
The conservative considers these things that you apparently were unable to address.
Apparently the House got the memo.
nt